An Unusually Painful Process: City Council Votes For SoDo Housing

After long and bitter fight, Seattle City Council President Sara Nelson won a clear victory March 18 with a 6-3 vote in favor of her bill clearing the way for affordable housing and small business “makers’’ spaces near the SODO sports stadiums.

But on Monday, the Port of Seattle filed suit to block the ordinance, calling it an illegal spot zone to benefit a single property owner – Chris Hansen, the erstwhile developer of the failed Sonics arena in 2016. The Port had earlier threatened legal action, but Nelson was undeterred.

“I’ve always been up for a fight for what’s right,” Nelson said. “I am proud I passed legislation that creates affordable housing, creates makers spaces, and improves public safety in an underutilized area, the stadium district.”

Nelson had the backing of a determined coalition: the powerful Building Trades unions and several other unions, housing and neighborhood activists, and the public authorities that own the football and baseball stadiums. In the background but never far away was Chris Hansen, owner of the property where the housing would be built, and backer of the Sonics basketball arena project rejected by the council in 2016.

It was a surprising defeat for the Port of Seattle and its longshore union allies, who had turned back housing and commercial development there for about 20 years, as well as stopping Hansen’s arena project. The vote comes as the Port is facing significant trade challenges with its struggles to regain cargo volume, and two cargo terminals shuttered — not to mention the Trump Administration’s plans for steep, trade-jeopardizing import tariffs.

The Port mounted a blistering campaign against Nelson, saying her bill was “benefitting one billionaire developer from California,’’ meaning Hansen, and argued that housing units on two blocks would choke freight routes to cargo terminals and cost hundreds of jobs.
The housing project “is the camel’s nose under the tent’’ that will pave the way for wider residential and commercial development in the stadium area, said Port Commissioner Ryan Calkins. The Port is offering to partner with Hansen for industrial development on the property — as long as housing isn’t involved.

Those arguments failed to persuade a majority of council members, who uniformly professed support for the Port. Backers of Nelson’s bill said the Port failed to prove its claims that residential traffic congestion would choke access to cargo terminals.

The Port is suing to block the housing project – about 1,000 units on two blocks south of T-Mobile Park — based on alleged violations of city and state industrial-land and port protection policies. Following the vote, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 19 said “today isn’t the end of fight, it’s just the beginning.’’ Maritime business groups are threatening to oppose Nelson’s re-election bid this fall.

“The Port feels we must take these actions to defend industrially zoned lands critical to our economic development and job creation mission,” said Port of Seattle Executive Director Steve Metruck. “The harmful impact to maritime and industrial operations caused by this spot rezone were not dutifully considered and there are many inconsistencies with state, county, and local land use regulations.”

Nelson’s steely determination to advance her bill — moving it to her own committee for review, rebuffing attempts to delay — rankled some of her colleagues, particularly councilmembers Dan Strauss and Bob Kettle. “This is about how we govern and how we lead by example. This process has created division,” Strauss told the council when passage of the bill seemed assured. “Once we make this change, our deepwater port is forever threatened.”

Several key factors shaped the debate: A new cast of city councilmembers; a project focused on housing priorities; the muscle of the Seattle Building Trades Council and its 19 affiliated unions.

In some ways, this council fight was the inevitable outcome of a process that was intended to bring peace to warring development and maritime interests but went sour at the last minute. Following a lengthy stakeholder process, Mayor Bruce Harrell in 2023 proposed a Maritime and Industrial strategy aimed at protecting industrial areas but also creating new housing opportunities in key areas.

That development plan’s preferred alternative, however, would have opened the door to residential development near the SODO sports stadiums. The environmental review of that plan found that limited housing “would not cause additional adverse impacts’’ to Port operations. But that recommendation crossed the Port’s bright line — no residences near the freight routes and cargo-container operations on the Duwamish River.

The Port’s opposition threatened the careful compromises achieved in other areas of the city. To salvage the bulk of the legislation, Mayor Harrell removed the SODO housing component at the last minute from his 2023 legislation. Hotels, however, would be allowed there.

Councilmember Nelson said she voted for the 2023 compromise bill but was not happy that housing was left out. “There was unfinished business,’’ she said. “I believe it was a missed opportunity.” Since that vote, the Port claimed “we had a deal’’ that blocked housing near the stadiums. But the unions, stadium owners and housing activists believed they had been double-crossed. They immediately began planning to bring back a revised housing proposal.

After the 2023 vote, the housing backers believed the mayor’s office gave them a green light to revive the housing concept, if the City Council would go along. What really was said is in dispute, but it is clear Harrell signaled he would remain neutral on a housing proposal if it came back to the council.

Meanwhile, since the 2023 adoption of the industrial-lands legislation, the last cycle of City Council elections brought a wholesale revamping of the council. Only Nelson and Strauss — the sponsor of the 2023 industrial legislation — remained from that vote. Gone were the most vocal progressives, replaced by a more moderate and business-friendly majority.

This time, the plans called for about 1,000 units on two Hansen-owned blocks. The buildings could be constructed only if they incorporated space for small businesses, the so-called makers spaces (such as bakers, clothing makers, and craftspeople.)

When Nelson introduced her legislation in January, she had the backing of construction workers, hospitality and hotel workers, as well as small businesses, and community activists from Pioneer Square and the International Districts. Hansen secured labor support with commitments to use union labor for the projects.

“Really, it was the Building Trades coming to the table and recognizing the opportunity we had there. The union’s voice really resonated,’’ said Joshua Curtis, executive director of the T-Mobile Park Public Facilities District.

A decade ago, the sports stadium authorities had pushed for a wholesale rewriting of zoning rules around the stadium district to allow high-rise buildings, restaurants, and entertainment venues. The vision was akin to the “LA Live’’ experience around Staples Center in Los Angeles. That provoked a furious fight with the Port.

Curtis said the vision “evolved’’ over time to settle on the “makers district’’ concept, bringing together small businesses and housing with the stadiums, but no high-rises. A poll commissioned by the stadiums found that the housing shortage was a top priority for the city’s voters. Residences would create a transition to the industrial areas to the south, addressing the housing shortage and potentially reducing crime in the area, he said.

For years, the Port employed a winning strategy with claims that sports stadiums and residential development so close to the marine terminals would cause traffic congestion and threaten cargo operations. Eastern Washington growers said the project could block agricultural goods flowing to the Port.

Port Commissioner Calkins said the Port is ready to put money into promoting industrial innovation in the area. “SODO is an area where the green economy and clean energy can really blossom,” he said. In rebuttal, the Port argued that the area lacks schools, grocery stores and other services, and residents would complain about traffic noise and air pollution.

“If you pass this legislation, you compromise our ability to compete for cargo market share and you impact longshore and other maritime jobs.” Port Commissioner Toshiko Hasegawa told the city council. “This proposal is not housing championship, and marking this for affordable housing is akin to redlining,” she argued, citing the racist practice of segregating minority residential areas.

But this new proposal had no arena, no nightclubs, high-rise towers, or parking garages as in past development schemes. Most of the residences would be limited to affordable rent levels, in buildings incorporating small-business spaces.

The city’s environmental review of the housing proposal concluded that traffic congestion would not significantly increase, and the review said air-quality levels meet federal standards and are no worse than other downtown areas.

As for traffic conflicts, the report noted that trucks hauling port cargo primarily use the West Seattle bridge to reach the Harbor Island and West Seattle terminals. Another important route is westbound Edgar Martinez-Atlantic Street south of T-Mobile Park, which feeds directly to Terminal 46 on the Duwamish River. Although north-south First Ave. S. is important for general commercial traffic, the street itself is not a primary port freight route.

Although the Port strenuously disputes those findings, it did not appeal the environmental review. Port officials explained they saw no need to appeal now since they supported the revised 2023 industrial-lands legislation. Even so, the environmental report weakened the Port’s claims about a threat to cargo operations and jobs.

“I did not have confidence that the reasons for the Port’s opposition stood up to scrutiny,” Nelson said. “I asked for traffic studies, and no one could put forth the evidence’’ of a significant impact.

Newly appointed City Councilmember Mark Solomon said he was persuaded by the housing and small-business opportunities. “If any project would be threatening to freight mobility or port operations, or our maritime economy, I wouldn’t be for it,” he said.

Councilmember Joy Hollingsworth’s support for the legislation was somewhat unexpected, as she had not voted to advance the bill in committee. Strauss unsuccessfully sought delay, arguing Nelson had strong-armed the council in pushing the legislation. He noted the challenges facing the Port, including the pending U.S. Coast Guard decision about expanding its Seattle base and acquiring some of the Port’s Terminal 46.

After five hours of debate, the council voted 6-3 to approve the bill. Backing the bill were Nelson, along with councilmembers Solomon, Hollingsworth, Cathy Moore, Maritza Rivera, and Rob Saka. Kettle, Strauss, and Alexis Mercedes Rinck voted no.

Harrell, who said he would stay neutral, has let the bill become law without his signature. But tensions between the Port and the city remain high, as are the strained relations among council members.

“I think this process was unusually painful,’’ said newly appointed councilmember Rinck, who opposed the bill and sought delay. “This saga will not end today. It will continue.” Despite the battle, Nelson does not expect permanent damage to relations with the Port. “Seattle was built on a maritime and industrial economy. That will not change,’’ she said. “I am still a partner with the Port.”